Title
Depra vs. Dumlao
Case
G.R. No. L-57348
Decision Date
May 16, 1985
Landowner Depra sued Dumlao for encroaching 34 sqm of his property. Courts ruled Dumlao a builder in good faith; Depra must choose to appropriate the structure or sell the land, ensuring equitable resolution.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-57348)

Facts:

Francisco Depra v. Agustin Dumlao, G.R. No. 57348, May 16, 1985, Supreme Court First Division, Melencio-Herera, J., writing for the Court.

The dispute concerns a 34-square-meter encroachment by Agustin Dumlao on a parcel owned by Francisco Depra (TCT No. T-3087, Lot No. 685, Dumangas, Iloilo). Dumlao owns the adjoining Lot No. 683. A relocation survey on November 2, 1972 revealed that Dumlao’s kitchen encroached upon Depra’s land. Depra’s mother, Beatriz Derla, sent a demand letter and on February 6, 1973 filed an action for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Court of Dumangas (Civil Case No. I); the complaint was later amended to join Depra as plaintiff.

On September 29, 1973 the Municipal Court found Dumlao to be a builder in good faith and entered a judgment creating a "forced lease" over the disputed 34 sq. m., fixing rent at P5.00 per month and providing that the lease commence when the decision became final. Neither party appealed; Depra, however, refused to accept rentals and Dumlao deposited the rents with the Municipal Court.

On July 15, 1974 Depra filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title against Dumlao in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Trial Court), asserting ownership of the 34 sq. m. Dumlao answered, admitting the encroachment but asserting res judicata based on the Municipal Court decision. The parties thereafter submitted a Joint Motion for Judgment with an attached Stipulation of Facts, and on October 31, 1974 the Trial Court issued an Order declaring that the 34 sq. m. was part of Lot 685 and that Depra was entitled to possess it.

(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Was the Municipal Court’s judgment creating a "forced lease" valid and, if not, did it operate as res judicata in the subsequent action to quiet title?
  • Did the Trial Court err in ruling that Depra was entitled to possession of the disputed 34 square meters despite the parties’ stipulation that Dumlao was a builder in good faith, and what relief should be afforded under...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.